Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] ArmVirtPkg: require self-signed PK when secure boot is enabled

["Gerd Hoffmann" <kraxel@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:49:07AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 at 23:59, Jan Bobek <jbobek@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > REF: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2506
> >
> > In all DSC files that define SECURE_BOOT_ENABLE, opt-in into requiring
> > self-signed PK when SECURE_BOOT_ENABLE is TRUE.
> >
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Leif Lindholm <quic_llindhol@quicinc.com>
> > Cc: Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@arm.com>
> > Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Bobek <jbobek@nvidia.com>
> 
> I have no problems with this patch, but I wonder if we need it. I
> suppose this is intended to retain the previous behavior, but i don't
> think that makes sense at all. Secure boot support in ArmVirtPkg is
> not production quality in any case, and self-signed PKs are rather
> pointless too, so I think we should just go with the new default
> behavior of allowing unsigned PKs.

Hmm, reading this (and the bugzilla entry) I'm wondering what the point
in requiring a self-signed PK is.  I can't think of a case where this
brings a benefit.  Shouldn't we just relax the requirement everywhere,
especially given that this is what the spec asks for?

take care,
  Gerd